It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

About the mass of the firecracker that caused the big bang

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Before I begin with my question you should know that I am not a physicist so excuse me if my thoughts on the subject are completely silly.

From time to time I see this famous equation of Einstein which says...E=mc^2

Translated it means that energy is equal to mass and the other way around...right?

I also know that energy can not be 'distroyed' or lost but is always transformed into an other type of energy. So, the total amount of energy before and after is always the same.

Now here comes the question...

First of all.....is it possible to calculate the energy in the universe and how should you go about that?

And second.....Is it possible to calculate the mass of the firecracker that caused the big bang? (assuming there was a big bang ofcourse)

Do not ask me why I should want to know that.....i am just curious...




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The equation is Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. As far as the answer to calculating the energy of the universe or the mass of the initial "event" I think that would be quite a task.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
OP, I think you may be confusing Mass for Size. Mass and Size are two different physical characteristics. Example. A piece of lead the size of a firecracker will have more mass than the firecracker because its atoms are closer together than the atoms in the firecracker.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I cannot answer your question. I have a question of my own concerning the Big-Bang.

We are told that the entire Universe was condensed into an infinitely small speck that exploded and became the entire Universe.

My question is this, to anyone that can help me understand: How could all the matter of the Universe be compressed down to the size of an atom?

I could more easily understand if the Universe was compressed to the size of a Galaxy, then exploded, creating everything that is.

I just can't see how it could all be compressed to the size of an atom.

Also, if it all started with a bang, should there not be a center of the Universe, where the explosion originated from?

Like dropping a stone into a mass of water, there is always a center, with the waves radiating outward.

Thanks ahead of time for any help.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
Now here comes the question...

First of all.....is it possible to calculate the energy in the universe and how should you go about that?


I'll answer the how first and then the issue of whether or not it is possible. The way that you would do it is to determine the average energy density per unit volume for some unit of volume that you pick. Then you would determine the entire volume of the universe, and multiply the average energy density by the total volume. This would give you the total energy of the universe. Energy density is exactly what it sounds like, energy per unit volume. Both mass and electromagnetic energy contribute to the energy density. The electromagnetic energy contributes to this value directly, while mass contributes to this this value at a factor of C^2(the speed of light squared).

So, for example, in order to determine the total energy of the milky way, you would pick some representive volume, say, our solar system and the space around it for a radius of a hundred light years(this is probably not actually a representitive sample). Then you would take all the mass in volume and multiply is by C^2, and you would take all of the electromagentic energy and add that to the value you got from the mass*c^2. That would be the total energy of your sample volume, call it Z. Then you divide the volume of the milky way by that sample volume and get some value X. You would then multiply X by Z and this would give you the total energy of the milky way. This would be to multiply the energy in your sample by the number of samples in the whole.

The process of determining the total energy of the universe would be the same, just scaled up. Although, that seems to be an impossible task, even in principal.

The reason that it is impossible is because we don't know and apparently can't know how big the universe is. We can only see things that are as far away as the the speed of light times the age of the universe. This is known as the observable universe. The universe is ~14 billion years old, so we can only see light that originates 14 billion light years away, or less. We can't see anything farther away than that because the light has not had time to reach us. Therefore, we dont know how far it goes, and physics as we know it prohibits us from ever seeing beyond this limit. This makes calculating the volume of the universe impossible. The volume is necessary in order to determine the total energy, so, it is also impossible to determine the total energy.



And second.....Is it possible to calculate the mass of the firecracker that caused the big bang? (assuming there was a big bang ofcourse)

Do not ask me why I should want to know that.....i am just curious...



Not at this point, for two reason. The first reason follows from the problem above. The only way to know what the mass of the singularity was is to determine the total energy of the universe and then convert that energy value to mass by e=mc^2. This would give the total mass necessary to create everything, but, as we saw above, the value for the total energy of the universe is presently unknowable.

The second reason that it is impossible is because the original "object" that went bang, the firecracker as you call it, was what is known as a singularity. Singularities do not conform to known physics. Our laws break down, if you try to calculate anything all answers come out as infinitity, and things just really don't make sense. This isn't something supernatural, it's just that we really don't understand them. This means that even if we knew the total energy of the universe, we couldn't directly map that back to the total starting energy. Time, gravity, and quantum effects play a part in the singularity that breaks all of our rules. There might have been less energy than there is now, and there might have been more, even though we know that energy can't be created or destroyed in conventional(non-singularity) physics. It's somewhat of a paradox, but consider that before the bang, there was no time. The relationship between time and energy is understood at large scales in Einstein's theories, but at the quantum scales that would have been important during the bang, there are many mysteries. I add this bit about time because we don't really know what happens when time "starts;" does this require energy? If it does, then how much? And how do we account for this in our calculation?

The bottom line is that we can't - even in principal - determine the total energy of the universe because we can't see beyond the boundry that lies at the age of the universe times the speed of light. Also, the physics of the firecracker still elude us. So, while there are people working on these questions, they are impossible to answer at present.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I agree that when they mention the singularity containing all the mass of the known universe it in incomprehensible to me.
However, I once read that the big bang would make more sense if it was approached as a release of energy rather than matter.
To me it seems more sensible at least, and fits better with my view of a "creator."
Where would a singularity come from anyway?

Thanks for the thoughts.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeta55
I cannot answer your question. I have a question of my own concerning the Big-Bang.

We are told that the entire Universe was condensed into an infinitely small speck that exploded and became the entire Universe.

My question is this, to anyone that can help me understand: How could all the matter of the Universe be compressed down to the size of an atom?

I could more easily understand if the Universe was compressed to the size of a Galaxy, then exploded, creating everything that is.

I just can't see how it could all be compressed to the size of an atom.

Also, if it all started with a bang, should there not be a center of the Universe, where the explosion originated from?

Like dropping a stone into a mass of water, there is always a center, with the waves radiating outward.

Thanks ahead of time for any help.
Gravity or the attraction of things for each other, but did it really blow or is illusion.

It you study hydraulics, they say things such as a liquid can only be compressed so far, but imagine putting 5 gallons of water in the space of 1 gallon, it is possible, but mind bending.

They say it appears we are somewhere close to the center of the universe.

In the Gita it is said if you travel at the speed of mind for a billion years you will still know nothing of the Creator.

One other thing strange, but if you take a gallon of water and mix it with a gallon of antifreeze you will end up with less than 2 gallons .

[edit on 4-9-2010 by googolplex]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5MaveN5

Where would a singularity come from anyway?

Thanks for the thoughts.
This is the things that can make people crazy.

The Creator stood in the nothingness and said I Am

Plus you are dealing with something that has always been and will always be

Trust in the Lord, be humble before the Creator, all of Creation is held by the Creator

One Creator Creation Truth Name Great Way Wisdom



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


Nice response but........


The reason that it is impossible is because we don't know and apparently can't know how big the universe is. We can only see things that are as far away as the the speed of light times the age of the universe. This is known as the observable universe. The universe is ~14 billion years old, so we can only see light that originates 14 billion light years away, or less. We can't see anything farther away than that because the light has not had time to reach us.


If the Universe is ~14 billion years old then there is nothing further away to see since according to that statement the Universe did not exist, thus there is nothing older/further to see. Since we can see to the ~14 billion mark then we apparently do actually now how big the Universe is since we can see the outer edge.

At the end you repeat this:


The bottom line is that we can't - even in principal - determine the total energy of the universe because we can't see beyond the boundry that lies at the age of the universe times the speed of light.


The statement is illogical. There cannot be anything beyond the age of the Universe as determined by these factors as the age is the limiting factor. Only if there is a time before the apparent age, or a layer that lies beyond (the age of the Universe times a speed faster than light?), can there be something outside, and yet the description of the Universe is "Finite yet Unbounded". Make of that what you will!!


edit on 9/9/2010 by PuterMan because: Ah, the inevitable speeling erra




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


The total energy of the universe when summed would equal zero according to most theories which nicely gets around the energy problem.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


No; inflation.



The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Light reaching us from the earliest known galaxies has been travelling, therefore, for more than 13 billion years. So one might assume that the radius of the universe is 13.7 billion light-years and that the whole shebang is double that, or 27.4 billion light-years wide.

But the universe has been expanding ever since the beginning of time, when theorists believe it all sprang forth from an infinitely dense point in a Big Bang.

"All the distance covered by the light in the early universe gets increased by the expansion of the universe," explains Neil Cornish, an astrophysicist at Montana State University. "Think of it like compound interest."

Need a visual? Imagine the universe just a million years after it was born, Cornish suggests. A batch of light travels for a year, covering one light-year. "At that time, the universe was about 1,000 times smaller than it is today," he said. "Thus, that one light-year has now stretched to become 1,000 light-years."


Source



Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?
We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. The negatively curved space is also infinite in volume even though it is curved. So we know empirically that the volume of the Universe is more than 20 times bigger than volume of the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. The simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we know about the Universe is that it is really big.


Source




top topics



 
0

log in

join